If you ignite some steel wool with a hydrocarbon flame, then you get lots of iron spheres, some of the same size as these microspheres. Note this is not from the flame melting the steel, but from the steel itself burning, and melting itself. This is only possible with a sufficiently large surface area to mass ratio - i.e. with very small or very thin particles.

The below debunking is by Dave Thomas of NMSR, JREF, and others. I'm collating it here to allow easier reference via Google, and so we don't have to keep going over the same ground.

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can easily be removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"

Content from external source

The answer to the mystery of the microspheres - "Iron melts only at temperatures far higher than possible in normal fires, so how could microspheres have possibly been formed on 9/11?" – is simply that very small metal particles have much lower melting points than their bulk material counterparts (around 900 o C for iron nanoparticles, as opposed to 1535 o C for bulk iron). This is called the "thermodynamic size effect." The towers contained thousands of computers and electric gadgets. Wires and filaments and meshes from electronics, as well as thin rust flakes and other small iron particles, could all have easily been made into microspheres during the WTC conflagration. To see a vivid demonstration of this phenomenon, watch the video on NMSR's YouTube channel, 'theNMSR', in which a BIC lighter is used to burn steel wool, creating numerous iron microspheres without any Thermite at all!

Content from external source

Another experiment by Dave Thomas, simply burning some beams in a wood fire:

Given the high energy of the collapsing building and the large amount of aluminum cladding in close contact with a large area of steel, then there would certainly be some microspheres created via this mechanism.

Attached Files:

Yes Mick. I've seen those arguments before. And as before there are many counter arguments. The 'fly-ash' suggestion is the most plausible as it is the only one capable of producing the sheer volume of microspheres discovered.

(Somehow I can't imagine that you are really supporting the view that many tons of steel wool was stored in the buildings. And melted wires and filaments from computers are hardly likely to amount to tons of material.)

The 'fly ash' idea stems from the theory that fly ash would contain many iron microspheres from the process that the ash was recovered from. Then, that ash, as a waste product, with its embedded microspheres, was sold as an ingredient for the lightweight concrete used to pour the floor systems in the towers.

When that concrete was pulverised by gravity, those microspheres already embedded in the concrete were then released, to be found in the dust in Manhatten by RJ Lee.

As I say, plausible.

Until you look closer at microspheres that can occur in fly ash and compare them microscopically with the microspheres in the WTC dust. As I understand it they differ quite markedly. I don't have the papers to hand showing that research as it was some years since this aspect was before me, but no doubt your own resource database may find it and be able to confirm or refute that 'difference' as being relevent.

Substantial quantities of previously molten iron spheres, up to 150 times the background level of iron in dust from other buildings in the area, were found and documented by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and The RJ Lee Group (RJ Lee). RJ Lee found the microspheres in amounts up to 6% inside the skyscraper across the street from WTC 2. Other scientists estimate a total of 10-100 tons of microspheres altogether throughout Lower Manhattan. These spheres were so plentiful that RJ Lee used them as a “signature component” of the WTC Dust and the EPA discussed their use as signature markers. RJ Lee notes that the microspheres were “created during the event,” that is, they were not created by welding operations during the cleanup of Ground Zero. The previously molten state of these microspheres indicates that they were created by temperatures hot enough to melt iron. Office fires and jet fuel fires, which do not produce such high temperatures, could not possibly have produced them.

Content from external source

So AE911 are either lying, or misinformed. And this falsehood has been on their site for years, even though it has been shown to be false. The very same source they quote has directly refuted them.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"

This debate has raged for years and I see no merit in a 'groundhog' debate.

But I did note your spin on one line.

RJ Lee quote :- "RJ Lee notes that the microspheres were “created during the event."

Mick quote :- "RJ Lee who also says the spheres would have been formed in the WTC fires."

You spun the 'created during the event' words to mean 'fire', when equally the 'creation during the event' could have been by 'thermite'.

RJ Lee's words could be interpreted either way, by either side of the debate.

Don't you just love the way words can be picked apart to suit any argument.

But there is one extra snippet that is rarely mentioned. That of microspheres of Molybdenum being found in the dust, and Molybdenum has a very high melting point of 2617ºC. Far beyond office furniture fire temperatures. Hmmmm.

Microspheres of iron are created by the condensation from vapor of iron molecules.

This occurs when fly ash is created, when sparks are struck with steel by friction. If oxygen is available these spheres should be partly comprised of oxygen, and what you're looking at is iron oxide. But it isn't impossible in the collapse of a large building for there to be no temporarily available oxygen, and then the microspheres will be pure iron.

The only difference will be the effect the cooling time will have on the degree of oxidation. Fly ash should be more oxidized.

Either way, using microspheres of iron is no way to prove some point about (shall I put this in?) thermite.

Best try alumina, Al2O3, the BIG waste product from burning thermite. Bright, white, easy to track. Was there any? Pfft...

Frictional heating falls between many stools, and has very few references.

So I'll implore you to use your brain. The amount of frictional heat energy one can impart into the surface of a material can always be made to exceed the amount causing it to dissociate into elements and turn into a plasma, after which event there is no friction possible (although other forces remain).

Don't waste my time. Spend more of your own considering what happens to meteorites. And what temperatures they reach.

Has it been determined with certainty that fly ash or slag was even used at the WTC in 1969? The WTC towers used Type 1 cement in its lightweight concrete floors. WTC7 used regular weight concrete. Type 1 isn't found under the Blended Hydraulic Types that include ash/slag.

Looking further I see this about slag. Does this mean it has no iron in it?

Blast-furnace slag, or iron blast-furnace slag, is a nonmetallic product consisting essentially of silicates, aluminosilicates of calcium, and other compounds that are developed in a molten condition simultaneously with the iron in the blast-furnace.

Fly ash, the most commonly used pozzolan in concrete, is a finely divided residue that results from the combustion of pulverized coal and is carried from the combustion chamber of the furnace by exhaust gases. Commercially available fly ash is a by-product of thermal power generating stations.

Lastly:

The United States uses a relatively small amount of blended cement compared to countries in Europe or Asia.

Frictional heating falls between many stools, and has very few references.

So I'll implore you to use your brain. The amount of frictional heat energy one can impart into the surface of a material can always be made to exceed the amount causing it to dissociate into elements and turn into a plasma, after which event there is no friction possible (although other forces remain).

Don't waste my time. Spend more of your own considering what happens to meteorites. And what temperatures they reach.

Click to expand...

Are you being serious ?

You are trying to compare gravitational friction between steel items accelerating downwards together, and with therefore almost zero differential speed in respect to each other to cause any friction at all - and to then compare that with plasma events and meteorites ?

And that such tiny possibility of friction can produce billions of iron rich microspheres spread over miles of Manhattan.

A better question (raised many times elsewhere) is why there's no aluminum in the red chips? (which are almost certainly paint chips).

Click to expand...

No aluminium ? Of course thare was aluminium there or the investigation would have halted at that point.

Page 12 of the Bentham paper :-

"The chemical signatures found in the red layers
are also quite consistent (Fig. 7), each showing the presence
of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O), and
a significant carbon (C) peak as well.

n 2007, the Bentham Open Science journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published a study contending dust from the World Trade Center attacks contained "active nanothermite".[9] Following publication, the journal's editor-in-chiefMarie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, "They have printed the article without my authorization… I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them".[10]
In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science." He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research."[11]

My mistake, I meant actual pieces of pure aluminum. Like you have in thermite.

Click to expand...

I thought that it had been explained. Ordinary thermite has particles of Al that have been ground down from a larger piece of Al. Nanothermite is built upwards from atomic level rather than ground down. The Al is there at nano particle level. You wont see "actual pieces of pure aluminum" like you can in thermite.

A phone call reveals that chief Marie-Paule Pileni never been informed that the article would be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by the journal juggernaut Bentham Science Publishers.

"They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I had no idea that the article was published. I can not accept, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, who normally is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France .

Content from external source

Please try to be less snarky. It can often lead to a violation of the politeness policy.

And that such tiny possibility of friction can produce billions of iron rich microspheres spread over miles of Manhattan. Come on.

Click to expand...

There are 1.1 *10^22 atoms in a cubic centimeter of iron. If there are a billion atoms in a microsphere, that still allows for ELEVEN THOUSAND BILLION microspheres from the equivalent of a stainless teaspoon.

I thought that it had been explained. Ordinary thermite has particles of Al that have been ground down from a larger piece of Al. Nanothermite is built upwards from atomic level rather than ground down. The Al is there at nano particle level. You wont see "actual pieces of pure aluminum" like you can in thermite.

Please try to be less snarky. It can often lead to a violation of the politeness policy.

Click to expand...

Yes. I apologise. I will try to refrain from that. But you are plain wrong in claiming that the paper wasn't properly peer reviewed. I answered the question about peer review in a different thread, and gave a link to a blog by one reviewer where his credentials were given.

Of course I was already aware of that resignation event. Academia does tend to close ranks. Don't you think that this is a case of 'Ad Hom' though. Such entries as yours focus on the messenger rather than the message. You are dismissing many scientists agreement to the information in the paper, on the grounds that you dont like the means of getting that message out.

If someone resigned after receiving flack for allowing such a controvertial subject to be published on her watch that is not relevent to the peer reviewed paper. And don't forget that up to date that paper has not been debunked and forced to be revoked.

Yes. I apologise. I will try to refrain from that. But you are plain wrong in claiming that the paper wasn't properly peer reviewed. I answered the question about peer review in a different thread, and gave a link to a blog by one reviewer where his credentials were given.

Of course I was already aware of that resignation event. Academia does tend to close ranks. Don't you think that this is a case of 'Ad Hom' though. Such entries as yours focus on the messenger rather than the message. You are dismissing many scientists agreement to the information in the paper, on the grounds that you dont like the means of getting that message out.

If someone resigned after receiving flack for allowing such a controvertial subject to be published on her watch that is not relevent to the peer reviewed paper. And don't forget that up to date that paper has not been debunked and forced to be revoked.

She feels not only stabbed in the back*, but is also concerned that the article on dust analysis following the terrorist attack on the United States 11 September 2001 has even found its way into The Open Chemical Physics Journal ."I can not accept that the item is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics , and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication . If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Sentence , " notes the former chief .

"I was really unsure about them in advance , because I had repeatedly asked for information about the magazine without hearing from them. It does not appear in the list of international journals, and it's a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad magazine , "says Marie- Paule Pileni and continues:" There are no references to The Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles . I have two colleagues who agreed to publish an article that never has been quoted anywhere. If no one reads it, it is bad magazine , and there is no need for it, " reads the harsh judgment.

Sheer nonsense
So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].

Acronym clue
Davis and Anderson, writing under the noms de plume David Phillips and Andrew Kent, also dropped a hefty hint of the hoax by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.

Yet four months after the article was submitted, "David Phillips" received an email from Sana Mokarram, Bentham's assistant manager of publication:

This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication.

The publication fee was $800, to be sent to a PO Box in the United Arab Emirates. Having made his point, Davis withdrew the paper.

I must refer you to my previous answer. You continue to use 'ad hom' attacks despite having had your attention drawn to that. All of your input is focussed on the publication route rather than the information itself.

As it happens I tend to agree with you about the way that Bentham was run and managed. And I also agree that resignation was probably in order. Not from the acceptance of a perfectly good and expertly peer reviewed paper, but rather from the lack of detection of a fraudulent and bogus 'gobbledegook' paper such as you describe.That took away all credibility from them. As I said, the final nail in her resignation coffin was the controvertial nature of the nano paper on the back of the bogus one.

If you consider for a moment, you will realise that if the information in the nano paper was peer reviewed correctly, then the information needs to be addressed, rather than the cyberpaper it was written on. That has been done by people better qualified than us, and up to the date of writing has not been refuted by any other paper that has been peer reviewed.

The only ones calling for it to be withdrawn are people in forums such as this who are not qualified to do that. In fact an attempt has been made to replicate the nanothermite laboratory work but after months the result has still failed all peer review and the authors and funders have now taken a very low profile on that project. The outcome is still awaited. And until then the original paper remains valid.

As you are aware, as requested, I earlier gave you full details of one of the peer reviewers and asked if you wished to challenge his credentials. Quite sensibly you demurred. But another member here launched an 'ad hom' attack at him personally rather than to his credentials, using the excuse that if his personality could be questioned then that automatically undermined his professional credibility.

That is classic ad hominum logic, and bogus, as most here realise.

To be honest I am starting to find such tactics tiresome in this forum and even more so when its use is highlighted and ignored within a few posts on the same topic. Please cease.

So you are questioning the credentials, motive, and personal credibility of the reviewer who has broken convention and identified himself ? And also feel able to say that others involved in the peer review process have no 'respectibility' - even though you have no idea who they are. I find that position somewhat untenable bearing in mind that the world and his wife have been desperately trying to debunk that paper, on technical grounds, for years, and failed.

So you are questioning the credentials, motive, and personal credibility of the reviewer who has broken convention and identified himself ? And also feel able to say that others involved in the peer review process have no 'respectibility' - even though you have no idea who they are. I find that position somewhat untenable bearing in mind that the world and his wife have been desperately trying to debunk that paper, on technical grounds, for years, and failed.

Click to expand...

There is no ad hominum attack. You presented the journal as a peer reviewed platform and a voir dire of the journal clearly shows that it is not a recognized peer reviewed journal. As Ms. Pileni says"

"I was really unsure about them in advance , because I had repeatedly asked for information about the magazine without hearing from them. It does not appear in the list of international journals, and it's a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad magazine , "says Marie- Paule Pileni and continues:" There are no references to The Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles . I have two colleagues who agreed to publish an article that never has been quoted anywhere. If no one reads it, it is bad magazine , and there is no need for it, " reads the harsh judgment.

There is no ad hominum attack. You presented the journal as a peer reviewed platform

Click to expand...

I did not present the journal at all. I presented the scientific paper that was printed in there. You have decided that because you don't like the cyberpaper it was 'printed' on that you can ignore the message in that scientific paper.

The paper itself has subsequently been submitted to the most rigorous 'peer review' imaginable by being exposed to every scientist with equal or superior qualifications in the world, and no one has yet been able to refute it by publishing their own peer reviewed rebuttal. The ultimate peer review has thus taken place.

I did not present the journal at all. I presented the scientific paper that was printed in there. You have decided that because you don't like the cyberpaper it was 'printed' on that you can ignore the message in that scientific paper.

The paper itself has subsequently been submitted to the most rigorous 'peer review' imaginable by being exposed to every scientist with equal or superior qualifications in the world, and no one has yet been able to refute it by publishing their own peer reviewed rebuttal. The ultimate peer review has thus taken place.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works. No one is going to waste time rebutting something that was published in a vanity publication. The more telling thing is that no other reputable journal quotes it.

That's not how it works. No one is going to waste time rebutting something that was published in a vanity publication. The more telling thing is that no other reputable journal quotes it.

Click to expand...

You really havn't thought this through have you. Do you not realise that many people are fiercely trying to rebutt it. They have reached out in all directions to do that. But failed. And you still focus on the messenger rather than the message.